DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to applicant's Arguments and remarks filed on 4/24/2026. Claims 1-13 and 15 are pending in the application. Claims 1-4 have been withdrawn and claims 5-15 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 14 is obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of objection are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “….wherein the at least one rotatable part is a brush bar” in lines 4-5 and line 17. Please delete one recitation of the repeat limitation.
Claim 5 recites “the at least one part” in lines 8-9 and 13. Please change this to recite “the at least one rotatable part.”
Claims 7-10 and 12 recite “the at least one part” in line 2. Please change this to recite “the at least one rotatable part.”
Claims 11 recites “the at least one part” in line 3. Please change this to recite “the at least one rotatable part.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part” in claim 5 and a “contamination detector for detecting contamination” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically, the rotation unit is understood to be a motor for rotating a fan or a brush bar (page 4, para 4) and equivalents thereof and the contamination detector is understood to be an optical sensor (page 5, para 1) and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In amendment filed on 4/24/2026, claim 1 recites “at least one rotatable part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode, and wherein the at least one rotatable part is a brush bar.” This is supported by the specification (page 5, lns. 8-9) and (page 5, lns. 8-10), wherein the latter citation explicitly states “when the at least one part is a rotatable part, such as a fan or a brush bar, the floor care device may further comprises a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part.”
Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one [rotatable] part comprises a user contact area, specifically designed for being contacted by a user during normal use of the floor care device.” There is no support for a rotatable user contact area, as the specification discloses the user contact areas to be a handle, button, knob, or touch screen (page 4, lns. 14-17) and is silent to their rotation capabilities.
Claims 8-9 recite further embodiments of the at least one rotatable part wherein the at least one rotatable part can be a handle, a button, a knob, a lever, or a touch screen. The specification discloses the user contact areas (page 4, lns. 14-17) but is silent to their rotation capabilities.
Claims 10 and 12-13 recite further embodiments of the at least one rotatable part wherein the at least one rotatable part can be an air filter, a dust bin, or a shroud for at least partially enclosing the dust bin. The specification only provides support for the rotation of the brush bar (page 5, lns. 8-9) and is silent to the rotation capabilities of an air filter, dust bin, or a shroud.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one rotatable part is located between the at least one light source and the second part.” The specification discloses wherein a dust bin, air filter, or a shroud may be arranged between the at least one light source and the second part (page 5, lns. 1-6) but is silent to their rotation capabilities.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In amendment filed on 4/24/2026, claim 1, from which claims 7-13 depend on, recites “at least one rotatable part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode, and wherein the at least one rotatable part is a brush bar.” Claims 7-13 recite further embodiments of the at least one rotatable part that are incongruent with the recited structure of a brush bar.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one [rotatable] part comprises a user contact area, specifically designed for being contacted by a user during normal use of the floor care device.” It is unclear how a brush bar, denoted by element 110 in Figure 2 of the drawings, is designed to be contacted by a user during normal operation of a floor care device.
Claims 8-10 and 13 recite further embodiments of the at least one rotatable part wherein the at least one rotatable part can be a handle, a button, a knob, a lever, or a touch screen. Each of these structural embodiments conflict with the brush bar structure, as recited in claim 7, and it is unclear how the at least one rotatable part can be both a brush bar and a handle/knob/lever/or a touch screen.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one rotatable part is located between the at least one light source and the second part.” The specification discloses wherein a dust bin, air filter, or a shroud may be arranged between the at least one light source and the second part (page 5, lns. 1-6). However, the specification explicitly states, “when the at least one part is a rotatable part, such as a fan or a brush bar, the floor care device may further comprise a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part [emphasis added]” (page 5, lns. 8-10), implying that the brush bar and fan are rotatable alternatives to a stationary a dust bin, air filter, or shroud that are positioned between the at least one light source the second. Therefore, it is unclear how a brush bar, can be positioned between the at least one light source and the second part if it is rotatable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20090133214 A1), in view of Kleine-Doepke (US 20190357746 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Kleine”), Rodriguez (US 20190247528 A1), and Oinuma (JP 2013172834 A).
Regarding claim 5, Yoo teaches a floor care device configured to operate in a floor care mode and a park mode (Fig. 1, vacuum cleaner 10, [0039], device is understood to be capable of operating in a floor care mode and park mode), the floor care device comprising:
- at least one rotatable part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode (Fig. 2, drum brush unit 120 rotates, [0032], [0039-0040]), and wherein the at least one rotatable part is a brush bar (drum brush unit 120 contains brush 122 = understood to be brush bar, [0032])
- a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part (drum brush unit connect to a driving motor, [0032])
- at least one light source for emitting ultraviolet light (Fig. 3, UV generation unit 150 contains UV lamp 156).
Yoo does not teach wherein the at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one [rotatable] part when emitting the light. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the contamination level of the drum brush, motivating one towards Kleine. Kleine teaches a vacuum cleaner nozzle having a rotatable brush (Fig. 1, brush B) wherein the brush comprises a plurality of lighting positions connected to a source LED (Fig. 1, lighting positions L connected to LED via light guide LG) such that light is emitted from the positions and onto the rotatable brush [0022-0023]. Kleine teaches the lighting positions to provide a visual indication of the brush’s contamination level [0007].
Kleine and Yoo are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to vacuum cleaners. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lighting source and drum brush as taught by Yoo to include the drum brush as taught by Kleine (including the light emitting positions and light guide connected to the lighting source) because Kleine teaches the brush to provide a visual indication of the contamination level and this involves the combination of elements (drum brush of Yoo and the drum brush of Kleine) to yield a predictable result (a drum brush connected to a light source) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Accordingly, Modified Yoo would teach a rotatable part comprising a brush bar such that the at least one light source is arranged to illuminate the at least one rotatable part when emitting the light (Kleine, Fig. 1, drum brush B would be connected to UV light source of Yoo that emits light through lighting positions L).
Modified Yoo does not teach wherein the at least one light source is configured to emit light in in a violet portion of the visual spectrum. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with providing a visual indication of the drum brush’s contamination level without exposing a user to harmful UV light through the lighting positions on the drum brush of Modified Yoo, motivating one to turn towards Rodriguez.
Rodriguez teaches a plurality of LED light sources (Fig. 1, 19, 21) for the deactivation of bacteria (abstract) including violet light within the 380-450 nm wavelength range because it is less harmful to humans than ultraviolet light but is still effective for disinfection [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV generation unit as taught by Yoo to include the violet light source as taught by Rodriguez to simultaneously provide sterilizing radiation while preventing harm to users and this involves the combination of elements (UV generation unit of Modified Yoo and the violet light source of Rodriguez) to yield a predictable result (a rotatable brush connected to a violet light source) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G) and 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, Modified Yoo would teach a rotatable part comprising a brush bar such that the at least one light source is arranged to illuminate the at least one rotatable part with sterilizing violet light (Kleine, Fig. 1, drum brush B would be connected to light source of Yoo that emits light through lighting positions L, wherein the light source comprises the violet light of Rodriguez).
Modified Yoo teaches a microswitch (Yoo, Fig. 5, 160) configured to turn the ultraviolet lamp on or off via a manually depressed button (Yoo, [0037]) but does not teach a floor care controller, operatively coupled to the at least one light source and operative to detect a transition of the floor care device to the park mode and, in response thereto, to execute a decontamination program, the decontamination program including using the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one part for the decontamination thereof wherein the decontamination program further comprises illuminating the rotatable part during and/or after rotating the rotatable part. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how to automatically activate/deactivate the disinfecting light based on a detected condition, motivating one to turn towards Oinuma.
Oinuma teaches a floor care device configured to operate in a floor care mode and a park mode (abstract) comprising a disinfecting light source (Fig .3, ultraviolet lamp 34) and a floor care controller, operatively coupled to the at least one light source and operative to detect a transition of the floor care device to the park mode and, in response execute a decontamination program, the decontamination program including using the at least one light source to sterilize a target area (control means 37 is a microcomputer connected to setting button 22, UV lamps 34, and a detection sensor 35, to detect and control operation mode of vacuum cleaner. In response, the control means controls the activation/deactivation of UV light exposed to a target area after a “stop” operation = understood to be a “park mode,” page 3, para 1-6).
Oinuma and Modified Yoo are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the vacuum cleaning arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum cleaning system as taught by Modified Yoo with the control means (microcomputer) of Oinuma because Oinuma teaches the control means to be connected to a disinfecting light source and actuate/deactivate light emitted by the light source to a target area in response to a transition of a vacuum cleaner to a park mode (page 3, para 1-6) and this involves the combination of elements (vacuum cleaner of Modified Yoo with the control means of Oinuma) to yield a predictable result (controllable light source that actuates/deactivates a sterilizing light source to a target area in response to the transition of a parked vacuum cleaner) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, Modified Yoo teaches wherein the decontamination program further comprises illuminating the rotatable part during/and or after rotating the rotatable part (Yoo, drum brush 120 understood to stop rotating when the vacuum cleaner is in a park mode, Oinuma, control means configured to actuate disinfecting light when detecting the vacuum cleaner is in a park mode (page 3, para 1-6) = understood to disinfecting drum brush after it stops rotating).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Yoo teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the at least one light source is configured for emitting light with a wavelength of about 405 nm (Rodriguez, [0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Yoo teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, including a control means configured to control disinfection (Oinuma, (control means 37 is a microcomputer connected to setting button 22, UV lamps 34, and a detection sensor 35) but does not teach wherein the floor care device further comprises a contamination detector for detecting contamination on a contaminated portion of the at least one part and wherein the decontamination program comprises selectively illuminating the contaminated portion.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with automatically disinfecting contaminated components on the floor care device without user intervention, motivating one to turn towards Oinuma. Oinuma teaches a floor care device comprises a decontamination sensor configured to determine a contamination level of a target area (Fig. 1, detection sensor 35 configured to determine contamination level of dust collection unit, page 4, para 6) and selectively sterilize the contaminated portion based on the detect contamination data (Oinuma, contamination data used to effectively sterilize dust collection unit, page 5, para 4-5; page 6, para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control means as taught by Modified Yoo with the detection sensor as taught by Oinuma because Oinuma teaches the detection sensor to determine a contamination level of a target area and selectively decontaminate the target area based on the data (page 4, para 6; page 5, para 4-5; page 6, para 2) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 6-7 of the amendment, filed 4/24/2026, the Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Oinuma with the violet light source of Rodriguez, as the modification would teach away from the UV reliant disclosure of Oinuma and undermine Oinuma’s UV detection and control mechanism due to the perceptibility of visible light with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Yoo et al. (US 20090133214 A1), Kleine-Doepke (US 20190357746 A1), Rodriguez (US 20190247528 A1), and Oinuma (JP 2013172834 A).
In the arguments presented on pages 7-8 of the amendment, filed 4/24/2026, the Applicant argues that Modified Oinuma does not teach the illumination of a rotating part wherein the rotating part is a brush bar with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Yoo et al. (US 20090133214 A1), Kleine-Doepke (US 20190357746 A1), Rodriguez (US 20190247528 A1), and Oinuma (JP 2013172834 A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights